The defendant is charged [in count __]
with arson in the first degree. The statute defining this offense reads in
pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of arson in the
first degree when, with intent to destroy or damage a building (he/she) starts a
fire or causes an explosion, and <insert appropriate subsection:>

§ 53a-111 (a)
(1): the building is inhabited or occupied or the person has reason to
believe the building may be inhabited or occupied.

§ 53a-111 (a)
(2): any other person is injured, either directly or indirectly.

§ 53a-111 (a)
(3): such fire or explosion was caused for the purpose of collecting
insurance proceeds for the resultant loss.

§ 53a-111 (a)
(4): at the scene of such fire or explosion a peace officer or firefighter
is subjected to a substantial risk of bodily injury.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Started or caused
fire or explosion1The first element is that the
defendant started or caused a fire or explosion.
To "start" means to commence. To "cause an act to be done" is to bring it
about. The fire started need not be a tremendous one. The mere striking of a
match can be the start of a fire. The fire or explosion must be incendiary in
origin. That is, it must not be accidental or caused by carelssness.
In considering whether the fire or explosion was incendiary in origin, you may
rely upon all the facts and circumstances at the time and place of the fire
or explosion,
as you find them to have been proved, and may draw any reasonable or logical
inferences from such facts. The mere fact that there was fire or explosion
damage to a building does not create an inference that its origin was
incendiary.

Element 2 - IntentThe second element is that the
defendant specifically intended to destroy or damage a building.2
A person acts "intentionally"
with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such
result. <See
Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Ordinarily, "building"
implies a structure that may be entered and used by people as a residence or for
business, or for other purposes involving occupancy by people, whether or not it
is actually entered and used as such. <Insert one or both of the following
parts of the definition as appropriate:>

The law has
expanded this definition to include, in addition to what we ordinarily know as a
building, any watercraft, aircraft, trailer, sleeping car, railroad car, other
structure or vehicle or any building with a valid certificate of occupancy.

The statutory
definition also provides that where a building consists of separate units, such
as, but not limited to separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, any unit
not occupied by the defendant is, in addition to being a part of such building,
a separate building.

Element 3 - Additional factorThe third element is that <insert
as appropriate:>

§ 53a-111 (a)
(1): the building was in fact inhabited or occupied or defendant had reason
to believe that the building was inhabited or occupied and nevertheless started
the fire or caused the explosion.

§ 53a-111 (a)
(2): any person other than the defendant was injured either directly or
indirectly. This could include an accomplice.3
The statute does not require that the injury sustained be serious, but the
injury must nevertheless be real. The injury may be a direct or indirect
consequence of the fire or explosion, but there must be a causal relationship
between the fire or explosion and the injury. Also, the defendant need not have
intended to cause the injury.4

§ 53a-111 (a)
(3): the defendant caused the fire or explosion for the purpose of
collecting insurance proceeds. In other words, the state must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant's reason for causing the fire or explosion
was to collect insurance proceeds.

§ 53a-111 (a)
(4): at the scene of the fire or explosion, a (peace officer / firefighter)
was subjected to a substantial risk of bodily injury. A "substantial risk of
injury" is one that is real, considerable or material.5<Insert appropriate definition:>

A "peace
officer" includes <insert type of peace officer>

A "firefighter"
means any agent of a municipality whose duty is to protect life and property
therein as a member of a duly constituted fire department whether professional
or volunteer.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant started or caused a fire or
explosion, 2) (he/she) intended to destroy or damage <identify the building>,
and 3) <insert appropriate additional factor>.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of arson
in the first degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other
hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not
guilty.
_______________________________________________________